I Have Stated Consistenly And Everywhere

I'll say it again. HILLARY CLINTON WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have never understood how "pattern baldness" differs from any other type of baldness.

But then . . . i have a full head of bee-you-tee-ful curly hair . . .

damn your eyes big dawg....

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have never understood how "pattern baldness" differs from any other type of baldness.

It's for males, and it comes in pretty patterns.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

and she's been overquick

Soz, this does sort of reflect my perception of your posts about Clinton. She can't do anything right. I'm not saying it's in every post where you mention her - but there's a definite scent lingering. And truly, it feels very much like what blatham has talked about.

~~~

Disclaimer - I don't think I could vote for Obama or Clinton if I were in the U.S., unless it was a dire emergency.

0 Replies

Green Witch wrote:

I like what Michael Moore says about the three candidates:

Who Do We Vote For This Time Around by Michael Moore

Thanks for the link:

Michael Moore wrote:

... nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will enthusiastically vote for him (just as I have voted for him twice in the past and plan to do so in the primary in February). If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, on the other hand, I will have to review my options. Those options, however, do not include voting for the Republican nominee -- not even if it happens to be John "Let's Keep Our Troops In Iraq for 1000 Years" McCain (and for those of you who would consider voting for either a Democrat or McCain, I have nothing but pity for your poor, deluded souls). Instead, I would look at third-party candidates to see if any of them more nearly reflected my values and concerns.

0 Replies

I'll pass on the pretty patterns . . .

. . . and i'll say it again: THE BEAR WILL NEVER GET INTO HILLARY'S PANTS . . .

(we all know you want it, Bear, fess up)

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

sozobe wrote:
and she's been overquick

Soz, this does sort of reflect my perception of your posts about Clinton. She can't do anything right. I'm not saying it's in every post where you mention her - but there's a definite scent lingering. And truly, it feels very much like what blatham has talked about.

That was a major element of her reaction to the -- second-to-last debate? The one where Edwards said something about her record/ policies and she said something like "Wolf, there they go again with the personal attacks." It simply wasn't a personal attack.

It's something that was talked about a lot and something I stand by. It was a strategic decision, and I think it was an intellectually dishonest decision.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would only consider voting for McCain over her.

You gotta realize, BpB, that she's 80% Republican. She's Republican lite. I don't trust her to represent my interests. I have a hard time believing that she's interested in ending the war, or ending domestic spying, or stopping corporate control of our nation.

Cycloptichorn

WHAT?????

She is not Republican anything.

She is a SOCIALIST.

0 Replies

Worst self-delusion i've seen (apart from Herr Flaja) in a month of Sundays.

0 Replies

You don't actually know anything about her at all, do you, Woiyo? If I asked, you couldn't identify her positions on a whole host of topics without looking it up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

She is a SOCIALIST.

If she was, I would not only vote for her, I would work on her election campaign. As already stated, she's Republican Lite.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
well soz, you ARE anti Hillary. I didn't say that made you a monster... but you are.

I'm not anti Obama, he's just not my first choice... and the worst thing I've said about him is that I don't think he has the behind the scenes experience or machinery to stand up to the Rove style attacks that are going to be piled on to him. I'm not going to say anything that a republican can turn around and parrot about him in the general election to beat him should he get the nomination.

So, the worst things I've said about Hillary are...??

(As in, how am I anti-Hillary but you're not anti-Obama?)

I do agree that there is a lot of ugly stuff out there about her. I just don't think it's coming from me or even from the Democrat contingent here, and I don't think it's coming from Democratic candidates.

I'm going to backtrack and look up a few things... it'll take awhile but I'm going to do it.

I'd be interested in knowing what you find. You've accused your fellow Dems of harsh anti-Clinton attacks before, but I've never seen it. I don't think she is the best Democrat out there and I agree with those that say she is part Republican in her actions, but I don't have anything against her personally.

0 Replies

Green Witch's response is indicative of the type of people hanging around A2K in great numbers.

0 Replies

What "type" of people do you mean, cj?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I'll pass on the pretty patterns . . .

. . . and i'll say it again: THE BEAR WILL NEVER GET INTO HILLARY'S PANTS . . .

(we all know you want it, Bear, fess up)

for the record, my greatest sexual fantasy is to be ravaged by Hillary, Margaret Thatcher and Janet Reno.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Green Witch's response is indicative of the type of people hanging around A2K in great numbers.

I assume people who own guns and like to eat wild harvested meat.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I'm not going to say anything that a republican can turn around and parrot about him in the general election to beat him should he get the nomination.

There's something about this line of thinking that really bothers me. I'm going to sit on it for a few minutes and come back and tell you why.

0 Replies

Being someone who cannot vote (though I can pay taxes for the last 11 years or so, damnit) I don't get overly excited about either Obama or Clinton. I could support both equally I think, though I think Obama would be a better signal in foreign policy internationally. Either way, I'll be fine with both choices.

I just want to point out that the below, if generally applicable (which it seems) makes her a worse candidate. Whether the bashing is righteous or vicious it is a bad thing for a presidential candidate, and would make me steer towards Obama more.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

soz I promise I was not referring to you particulalry at all.

Hillary is slammed by democrats as much as she is by republicans, even her fellow politicians, and I think it is the height of foolishness that the republicans are having their general election smear ads written for them by democrats.

My Christmas gift to you was a good natured poke with no malice intended, for the record.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I'm not going to say anything that a republican can turn around and parrot about him in the general election to beat him should he get the nomination.

There's something about this line of thinking that really bothers me. I'm going to sit on it for a few minutes and come back and tell you why.

Ok, after much thought I'm going to try to expand on what it is about this line of thinking that bothers me. It smells like the same bs we get about not trashing our president because of what other countries will do with that. Or not speaking publicly against the war where our enemies might hear us. The fact is this, if Hillary is bad news (as I think she is, and not because Republicans once trashed her about that baking cookies comment), then now is exactly the time to speak up. If the Republicans will have such a field day with what we say about her, and if our criticisms are valid, then we should find another candidate. Otherwise, who cares what the Republicans try to use against the Democratic nominee based on what was said in the primaries, that knife cuts both ways.

0 Replies

For the record, I'm an Obama supporter who would definitely vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. I would much prefer to see her as president than any of the Republican candidates.

0 Replies

I Have Stated Consistenly And Everywhere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know